NONE: Frames aren't so bad...
Frames aren't so bad...
Lance Jones (sword_at_mail.islandnet.com)
Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:41:03 -0700
Hi, all,
I feel compelled to de-lurk in defense of the innocent frames. ;^)
Ana Petrova writes:
>I was wondering if anyone knows any information about the
>popularity of "frames" style web pages vs. non frames. I personally
>do not like them, but I wondered if there are any surveys done on
>the subject?
Saying that you "do not like them" is like saying you do not like
Web pages. We need to qualify such a statement. Frames are not like the
infamous "BLINK" tag -- there is only one way to use *that* annoyance.
However, there are a multitude of methods to implement frames on one's
site, and some of them truly make sense from an advertiser's (and user's)
point of view. It would be more acceptable for someone to say that of
the Web sites they have viewed, there have been no effective
*implementation* of frames design.
Richard Footitt writes:
>I enjoyed one comment that a person made, and I think it is very
>true. It went something like this: browser real estate is very much
>limited, and with the addition of frames, it cuts it up even into
>smaller and smaller parcels. I got a chuckle out of that one.
I used to believe this. Yes, browser real estate is fixed, but the
new borderless frames (Navigator and Internet Explorer) do absolutely
nothing to cut into the limited space. There might be a scroll bar,
like most *frameless* pages, and more than one becomes a question of
ergonomic site design. Most pages have a navigation tool that re-appears
every time a link is selected: why not fix it within a borderless frame?
>I do think that frames can tend to confuse the new surfer. I know I
>was confused the first time I came upon them. I didn't know which
>frame to click or where it would take me. It seemed then and still
>does to me now that frames pose a situation with too many choices to
>make on one screen.
This is exactly what I mean. Poor site ergonomics. It's not the fault
of the frame; it's the fault of the author. Plain and simple. There
should be *no* question of which frame to click. It should appear
seamless.
>I once considered putting frames on my site, but then decided that a
>good site does not need them, and so have not as of yet put them to
>use in my web page authoring.
What's a good site? It shouldn't be a question of *need*. It comes down
to a question of user convenience, page enhancement, and innovation.
Microsoft has done a good job with frames on their Site Builder Workshop,
and Starbase-21 utilizes a frame to display a Java-powered rotating
advertisement (their other frames aren't such a good example!).
Microsoft:
http://www.microsoft.com/workshop
Starbase-21:
http://www.starbase21.com/
I'm not affiliated with either one.
Let's not give up on the <frame> tag just yet...
Lance Jones.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
Let Web Surfers Know It's Time To Visit Your Site
Web Watches from Lynx Marketing, http://www.logotime.com/web.html
Earn $$$ for publicizing your own web site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
